Who pays what?

[ifoundthebread]

As the title suggests. Who pays what in this scenario.

A lends an item off B to be used during an alcohol fuelled 21st birthday party. C breaks this item while drunk. B tells A item cost £100 when it was bought, C gives A £100 to order a new one to give back to B. Item is no longer available and closest one found is £150. Should C cough up the extra £50 to buy a replacement or has C payed enough as that is what the broken item was worth.

If the item didn't break then B would still have the item.

As the item can not be replaced for the original cost and the closest one now costs £150 then B should receive £150.

A and C should, between them, make sure B receives the full replacement value.

The item should have been returned, therefore C should pay the £150 to do so. Failing that, C should pay £100 and B £50 because you shouldn't borrow if you aren't prepared to replace.

I'm trying to think of what I would want if I was B. I have a radio, only a certain number were made, and it cost me £130 to buy about 6 years ago but you can only get them second-hand now for around £200. So I would hope for a new one to be bought, regardless of price.

However, I would never lend it purely because I know it would be hard to replace. So if B knew it was for a party where there would be drink, plus they told A it cost £100, then the £100 given should be enough. But if B didn't know it was going to be used at a party then they can expect the item to be replaced, regardless of cost.

Is it an item you could purchase used? Personally, I'd pay for a new one, even if it meant paying an extra $50, but I could see the argument that if the item was used you could replace it with a good condition used one.

I think it depends if C was dicking about with the item or it was a pure accident.

If I was A I would probably pay the £50 as it was in my care. A bit like a company keeping a damages deposit.

Anyone else wonder what on Earth it could be?

C needs to pay the remainder

They need to pay to replace it. It’s not the lenders fault that it got broken the borrower broke it so they need to replace it. It’s not about the cost it’s about the physical item.

A type of tent for Glasto maybe?

YABU for saying lend when you mean borrowed.

A was stupid to lend an expensive item to be used at an alcohol fuelled party

C was unreasonable to break the item but has paid what was asked of them

B should make up the shortfall because it was them who borrowed the item in the first place and they should’ve looked after it

All you sods criticising her, she is clearly from the North East where 'lends off/from' is colloquial speech. Just answer her post reasonably and if you can't, try not to be such arses. Jeez.

OP I would stick with the £100 cos that is the cost of the item broken brand new, even though it wasn't brand new.

Sorry I’ve got my A and B mixed up. B was stupid to lend an expensive item to be used at a piss up

A should make up the extra £50 because they should’ve looked after the borrowed item better

Presumingly C asked how much it was and was told £100. I think C has paid enough. If the original owner wanted more, they should have said this originally.

I think the borrower and the breaker should pay £50 each. If the lender needs or wants and replacement, S/he would also need to pay £50 to get the new one. It isn’t the fault of the others that it was broken. An unfortunate accident in my opinion.

Place marking in the hope that the item will be revealed. I could possible say who is being unreasonable without know what the item was.

For example a crystal punchbowl could be replaced for £100 even if it’s not the exact same one. If the item was ....???

Actually I can’t think of an item that could be purchased for £100, but then an equivalant couldn’t be purchased for less than £150. Unless it’s something branded they got a great deal on like a soundbar?

I think C should replace it which means paying for whatever it costs.

However, they have paid the £100 and I'm assuming it was an accident so I would try and get it cheaper (if you originally got it for £100 it should still be that price in some places) but if you don't want C to pay the extra £50 could you split the £50 between all 3 of you so it's fair

could you split the £50 between all 3 of you so it's fair

Why should B have to contribute? It’s their item that got broken and not due to anything they did.

As a Geordie using lend to mean borrow is completely normal to me. This thread has brought out the language geek in me and I'd like to add the fun fact that in some US regions the opposite applies and people use borrow to mean lend e.g. 'can you borrow me a pen?'. Meanwhile several languages have only one word for both and let the context make the meaning clear. As you were.

Because B lent the item knowing it was to be used at an alcohol-fuelled birthday party - and C has paid for the item to be replaced at the cost that they were told.

Gustavo1
I think the borrower and the breaker should pay £50 each. If the lender needs or wants and replacement, S/he would also need to pay £50 to get the new one. It isn’t the fault of the others that it was broken. An unfortunate accident in my opinion.

Are you saying you think the owner of the item should pay? The person who broke it obviously should replace it? Why is this even a question?

How did C break it? I think that's important. If it was a delicate item that was left somewhere careless like hanging off a table in a crowded bar and c accidentally knocked it off as she walked past then I don't think she should have to pay at all. Same goes for if she sat on it. I think the borrower should pay or the person who lent it for such a night should say it doesn't matter. Unless the person who broke it was being entirely unreasonable when they broke it it was an accident with an expensive item that both the borrower and the lender thought they would be okay to risk taking on a hen night. I wouldn't be happy having to pay £150 because somebody else thought they would bring an expensive item on a hen night. I wouldn't be careless with somebody else's things either so if c was that changes things.

It's fine to replace it like for like, so a second hand one for £100 if that's possible and the condition is the same.

I think the decent thing to do wouldn’t be for the breaker to pay £150 so A is once again able to own said item.

But if I were A I’d probably take the £100 to preserve good feelings and chalk it up to experience that you shouldn’t lend what you cannot afford to lose.

To answer some questions.

I am none of the people involved, I am a relative of both A and C.

Wasn't an interesting item, was a gazebo. Numbers aren't exact, just used round numbers to keep explanation simple.

So how did C break the gazebo? If she was helping the borrower put it up and it broke it would be crazy to charge her £100 for her help.

They find a like for like replacement??